J J PARMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned advocate Ms. Pahwa for Mr. Thakkar for the petitioners and Mr. Ghori, the learned AGP who is appearing for the respondents. In this petition, the petitioners are challenging the action of the respondents in seeking to terminate their services without holding of any inquiry as well as denial of the benefits of the higher pay scale though the petitioners have completed nine years of their continuous service. Brief facts of the present petition are to the effect that the names were called from the Employment Exchange by the respondents for the post of Computer; on 3rd February, 1984, the petitioners received interview call letter from the respondents and appeared for the interview on 3rd February, 1984.The petitioners, thereafter, received appointment orders after being selected in the interview held by the respondents on various dates from 15.2.1984 to 3.5.1984. The petitioners have given details of date of interview, date of appointment and the place of appointment at Annexure-A page 11. The respondents have filed affidavit in reply wherein the respondents have not disputed the details of date of interview, date of appointment and the place of appointment at Annexure-A page 11 given by the petitioners. Thereafter, on 7th January, 1994, the petitioners made representation to the respondents for giving them benefit of higher pay scale as they have completed nine years of service. On 14th February, 1994, reply has been received by the petitioners from the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of higher pay scale as the inquiry is pending they would be entitled for such benefit when the inquiry is over and appointment of the petitioners is made regular. On 21st February, 1994, reply was given by the petitioners to the respondents that till date, no inquiry is pending against the petitioner and not initiated by the respondents and the appointment are regular appointment. Thereafter, on 2nd March, 1994, the respondents gave reply to the petitioners that the appointments of the petitioners are not regular appointment. On the basis of the above correspondence between the petitioners and the respondents, the petitioners reliably learnt that the respondents are not considering their appointment as regular because as per the stand of the respondents, the names of the petitioners have not been forwarded by the Employment Exchange. According to the petitioners, their names have been registered with the Employment Exchange Office and yet the respondent no.3 has been directed by respondent no.2 to terminate the services of the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners were apprehending such threat and, therefore, filed the petition alleging that their services are likely to be terminated at any time. Initially, this Court (Coram : M.R. Calla, J.) passed the following order on 31.8.1994:

(2.) Therefore, in view of the aforesaid ad.interim order made by this court while admitting the petition, the petitioners have remained continued in service and even today, they are working with the respondents. Further, bare perusal of the ad.interim order made by this Court while admitting the petition makes it clear that this court has granted protection only against the termination if they were already continuing on the date of filing of the petition. Meaning thereby, this court has not granted any stay against initiation or contemplation of any inquiry against the petitioners. The petitioners have also annexed appointment orders issued in their favour by the respondents and the respondents have also not raised any dispute about such appointment orders.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, affidavit in reply has been filed by the Deputy Director (UC) Respondent NO.2 Shri P.S. Pandya on 22nd November, 1995 wherein the deponent has contended in para 4 that except petitioners no.1,2,3 and 12, the question of appointment through proper channel and employment exchange is untrue. It has also been submitted by the deponent that the competent authority pursuant to the selection process carried out intimated to Regional Employment Officer as to interview made and decision to make appointment arrived at pursuant to the list of candidates sponsored by (purported to have been sponsored by) the employment exchange authority; the employment exchange authority did not confirm to have sponsored the candidates from Sr.No.1 to 12 except No.1,2,3 and 12 and disputed the communication sponsoring the names of the persons to the authorities; the authorities examined the issue concerning to fake document sponsored by petitioner no.4,5,6,7,8,9,10 and 11 and accordingly intimated the further course of action, which is the subject matter of challenge in Special Civil Application no. 10566 of 1994 wherein ex parte ad.interim relief has been granted by this court. In para 6 of the reply, the deponent has also contended that a fake and unauthorized list of candidate was sent to the said office purported at the behest and instance which included the names of the petitioners except at sr.no.1,2,3 and 12. The deponent has also submitted that it came to the light where the office of the regional employment officer, Ahmedabad was informed about the number and names of the candidates appointed and the said authority informed vide his letter dated 1.10.1984 not to have sent such a list. The District Social Welfare Officer, Ahmedabad has also informed vide his letter dated 3.10.94 that the list earlier sent was not signed by the Head of the Office or the authorized officer. Thus, according to the deponent, the petitioners have managed to get appointments on fake and unauthorized list of candidates. The deponent has also submitted that since the petitioners are not the regular employees save and except the petitioners at sr.no. 1,2,3 and 12, they are not entitled for promotion and higher pay scale. The deponent has also submitted that as the inquiry in the matter was continued and a decision as to whether the petitioners may be considered regular or not was awaited, an interim reply was given to the petitioners. Since the petitioners have managed to get appointment on the basis of fake and unauthorized list, the appointments of the petitioners cannot be considered as regular one. The deponent has also contended that since the Regional Employment Officer, Ahmedabad is not a party, for want of joining of necessary party, the petition is required to be dismissed. On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the deponent has prayed for dismissing the petition with costs.